Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (764616)

1/19/2014 12:33:10 AM

From: joseffy

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

Respond to of 1573076

NY TIMES editor: Overseeing Krugman's work a "nightmare"
..........................................................................................................

Former NYT Public Editor Said Majority of Workload Involved Krugman's Inaccuracies and Misstatements

By Noel Sheppard | October 10, 2013

NewsBusters readers are well-aware that one of our problems with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman - besides his perilously liberal bias, of course! - is how he plays fast and loose with facts to support his agenda.

On MSNBC's Morning Joe Thursday, co-host Joe Scarborough said, "One of the public editors of the New York Times told me off the record after my debate that their biggest nightmare was his column every week"(video follows with transcript and commentary):

NIALL FERGUSON, HISTORIAN: Nobody seems to edit that blog in the New York Times and it’s high time that somebody call him out. People are afraid of him. I’m not.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, CO-HOST: I actually won’t tell you which public editor it was, but one of the public editors of the New York Times told me off the record after my debate that their biggest nightmare was his column every week.

Unfortunately the segment ended there and Scarborough didn't have time to elaborate. So I contacted him via email and received the following:

"During a conversation with one of the New York Times public editors, it was volunteered that the majority of their workload revolved around inaccuracies and misstatements attached to Paul Krugman's column and blog. What made that conversation with the former public editor all the more compelling is that it occurred several years ago before Mr. Krugman and my public battles. The public editor at the time rolled his eyes and said of overseeing Krugman's work 'It's a nightmare.'"

Makes you wonder if the unnamed public editor was Daniel Okrent who in his final column for the Times on May 22, 2005, deliciously observed, "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."

Read more: newsbusters.org

To: koan who wrote (764616)	1/19/2014 12:10:27 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Recommended By d[-_-]b Respond to of 1573076

My point was always that societies were brutal without democracy. That may have been the point you intended to make, but it was not the original point you stated. -------- Democracy is he main thing that holds us together. You need to study that. Message 29326172 << A society can be held together without democracy, >> Show me one country where that has ever been true. Message 29326671 --------- You seem to have a problem remembering what conversations are about. At first I thought it was just difficulty remembering what the other person had said, but now I see its difficulty remembering your own statements as well. Instead of making a statement, and then defending it, conceding, or just dropping the topic when challenged, you make the statement and then when challenged you don't respond to the challenge, shore up your original statement, or say you didn't express yourself well and then say you meant to say something else and explain what it is (or again drop the topic), instead you turn it in to one of your pet peeve topics. Almost everything becomes defending democracy (even though its rarely attacked), or talking about how scientists are liberals (even though its not true to the extent you think it is, and is irrelevant most of the times you mention it), or about how conservatives are such horrible people (again not really true and also usually of no relevance to the point under consideration). If you don't want to reply to the topic at hand, don't reply to it. If you want to change the topic in reply then fine do that and make it clear that your are doing so. But don't change the topic and pretend that your still replying to the original point.